Retrieve every render job created since the server started to monitor progress and review completed or pending takes.
All render jobs since the server started.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_jobs"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds genuine non-annotation context: the results are bounded by server uptime, implying an in-memory, non-persistent set that resets on restart. It does not disclose ordering, result size, or whether the list is paginated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short sentence with no filler and the scoping qualifier front and center. It is clipped to the point of being a fragment, which costs a little clarity but wastes nothing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-argument list tool with no output schema, the description should say something about what each job entry looks like or how many to expect; the agent has no other source for the return shape. The uptime-scoping detail is the main thing it contributes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No schema compensation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the resource (render jobs) and the scope (all jobs since server start), so an agent knows roughly what comes back. However, it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, and it never names the sibling it differs from (job_status, list_takes), leaving the agent to infer that this is the enumeration counterpart to a single-job lookup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling list/status tools. The phrase 'since the server started' implies a full-history enumeration, but the agent must infer that on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.